Proppant Mixtures

ABSTRACT

The invention relates to a propped, fractured, subterranean field with (a) a first proppant and (b) a second proppant that exhibits a relatively higher average crush strength and/or an ability to form a particle to particle bonded structure than the first proppant. Preferably, the first proppant is uncoated sand and the second proppant is resin-coated sand. The proppants can be deposited as a substantially homogeneous mixture or in layered structures (vertical or horizontal) within the fractured field. Deformation of the second proppant under closure stress acts to spread out the compression pressures in a mixture so as to reduce failure of the first proppant. Similar protective effects are found when the proppants are deposited in layers. When formed as vertical pillar structures, the second proppant structures can also act as in-situ screens that inhibit formation fines from migrating through the proppant pack to the detriment of field conductivity.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The invention relates to mixed, layered or sequential proppant structures in a subterranean field for the reduction of proppant crushing and control of fines movement along the fractured, propped field. The invention relates to the use of mixed proppants, or the layered or sequential addition of two or more proppants. The resulting packed fracture configuration is more resistant to proppant crushing and better control of fines migration that can reduce the packed fracture's ability to maximize well productivity.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Several high strength proppants are available on the market. While these proppants have superior crush strength relative to frac sand, they are considerably more expensive so the question presented to the producer is one of pure economics balancing proppant failure against cost and productivity. In some cases, the economics of using the superior proppant may be marginal so alternative methods become attractive. One such alternative is a modification of the proppant schedule to place a regular strength proppant deep in the fracture and a high strength proppant next to the wellbore where closure stresses will be greatest. The term “tail in” has become used to describe the use of a different proppant in the final proppant stage of a multifracture treatment. Therefore a “tail-in” is pumped either to control proppant flowback, maximize conductivity nearest the wellbore, or both.

Fines are a problem in hydraulic fracturing of wells to recover trapped oil and gas. Fines can come from loosely consolidated strata, such as sandstone, whose grains flow into the well along with the oil and gas. The fracturing process itself can create fine pieces of rock and strata that enter liquid flow streams towards the wellbore. The substantial pressures and harsh environment within the field can also cause proppants to fail and generate fines, particularly during cyclic shut-in periods. The high stress exerted on the proppant pack can also lead to the embedment of the proppant pack into the faces of the created fractures. This embedment process will itself creates fines that can enter the proppant pack and be transported toward the wellbore. Portions of these fine materials are sufficiently small that they can become entrained in the water, oil and gas streams that move under pressure towards the relatively lower pressure wellbore. These fine materials will increase in concentration as they move along the fracture toward the wellbore and can ultimately clog desirable pore openings and channels to the detriment of the well's conductivity. Gravel packs and screens have been used around the wellbore to help protect, among other things, against loss of conductivity from fines movement.

Others have addressed the issue of fines generation and protecting the propped field against loss of conductivity and/or permeability that can occur with the movement of the fines during production.

WO 2012/085646 includes a detailed background discussion of hydraulic fracturing terminology and techniques and specifically teaches the sequential use of a fine proppant followed by a re-opening of the fractures and introduction of a larger proppant. However in this approach a smaller sized proppant is to be placed along the fracture faces specifically to minimize the entry of formation fines into the proppant pack. It is not designed nor can it be expected to address the generation of fines (from proppant crushing) or the control of movement of the fines (that are in the packed fracture) during production of the well. Such a process uses the fine proppant to hold open small cracks so that they can be re-expanded in the re-fracking step to a size sufficient for the larger proppant.

In its 2005 paper “Conductivity Endurance”, Halliburton describes the adverse effects of fines penetration into proppant packs with the attendant reduction in conductivity. On pages 23-24, five mechanisms of particle deposition are presented: (1) surface deposition of particles, (2) pore-throat bridging and accumulation, (3) internal cake formation, (4) external cake formation, and (5) infiltration sedimentation. The solutions proposed in the paper included the use of (a) resin coated sands, (b) mechanical exclusion methods such as mechanical screens or the “frac-packing technique”, and (c) chemical treatments that include (i) a proprietary surface modification agent designed to form a tacky exterior coating, (ii) chemical flocculants, (iii) organic cationic polymers, (iv) inorganic polymers, (v) oil-wetting surfactants, and (vi) clay stabilizing agents.

The 2007 article “Frac Packing: Fracturing For Sand Control”, Middle East & Asia Reservoir Review, Number 8, pp. 36-49 (2007) describes the frac-packing technique for controlling fines as the simultaneous fracturing of the well with the formation of the gravel pack to hold back formation sand behind a pre-positioned screen that holds back the gravel.

A 1992 paper entitled “Fracture Conductivity Loss Due to Proppant Failure and Fines Migration”, CIM 1992 Annual Technical Conference, Calgary, Canada (Jun. 7-10, 1992) reports on the effects of fines migration on a proppant pack containing two different proppants simulating tail-ins. As noted on page 3 of that article, tests were performed to simulate the placement of sand in the front end of a fracture and a higher strength proppant nearest the wellbore, i.e., a tail-in.

The disclosures of the above references and all other references mentioned in this document are hereby incorporated by reference.

It would be desirable to have a method that helped to minimize proppant failure that contributes to the presence of fines and for controlling the movement of fines in the fractured field through the proppant pack and, ultimately, to the wellbore and any screens or gravel pack found there so as to maintain conductivity through the fractured field.

It would also be desirable to have a fines control system that did not require that well operators add expensive, new equipment or systems in order to achieve better fines control and maintained conductivity.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

It is an object of the invention to provide a method for forming a propped fracture field for the production of oil and/or gas that uses a combination of proppants to reduce fines generation from crushed proppants.

It is another object of the invention to provide a segmented structure of proppants within a fractured subterranean field that helps to control the generation of fines from crushed proppant and, optionally, to control the migration of fines within the fractured field.

In accordance with this and other objects of the invention that will become apparent from the description herein, the present invention comprises a method for forming proppant structures in a fractured subterranean field by steps that comprise injecting appropriately sized first proppants and second proppants into the fractured field whereby said second proppant solids exhibit a higher average crush strength than the first proppants.

The method of the present invention can be used to introduce a mixture of first and second proppants, or to sequentially introduce the first and second proppants into the fractured field. Depending on how the respective proppants are introduced and what type of fracturing fluid is used to place the proppant, the resulting propped, fracture field can exhibit reduced crushing of proppants and the attendant reduction in created fines from failed proppants and a structure that can inhibit the migration of produced fines if adjacent layers of proppants are positioned vertically with respect to one another and remain in such a configuration as a form of in-situ screen after the fracture has closed and closure stress is applied to the proppant pack. The result of such fines control is the maintenance of conductivity over a longer period than might be experienced without the present invention. A mixture of first and second proppants can be used to reduce crushing and intermittent segments of a stronger proppant (preferably resin coated) to restrict fines movement. Preferably, the stronger second proppant is also capable of bonding with other, adjacent, second proppants. With the most preferred embodiment of the invention, at least a portion of the migrating fines adheres to the proppant coating.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 shows the formation of a propped fracture with a vertically layered structure. Note: All figures are representing side views of the packed fractures. Proppant 1 and 2 could be a similar size or different sizes.

FIG. 2 illustrates a propped fracture with a horizontally layered structure.

FIG. 3 depicts a mixture of two types of proppants according to the invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

The present invention uses a combination of first and second proppants in a mixture or in layers (horizontal and/or vertical) to control the generation of fines and/or their migration within a propped subterranean, fracture field.

When mixed substantially homogeneously (see FIG. 3), the second proppant 2 of higher crush strength acts to protect the relatively less strong first proppant 1 from failure. In the context of a preferred embodiment using a mixture of uncoated sand (first proppant 1) and resin-coated sand (second proppant 2) of substantially equivalent size range, the greater the percentage of resin coated sand that is mixed with the uncoated sand, the greater the decrease in failure of the uncoated sand. Without wishing to be bound by theory, it appears that the presence of the resin coated sand in the pack protects the uncoated sand.

The coating on the resin coated proppant is known in the art to improve crush resistance by increasing the area of the contact points of the grains in contact. This increase in contact area effectively reduces the point load on the proppant grains that normally would be sufficient to cause grain failure. In the present invention, the coating of a resin coated proppant is also used to protect an uncoated grain that is in contact with the coated grain in a similar manner. While not wishing to be bound by theory, the coating on the coated grain likely deforms at the contact point with the uncoated grain. This deformation increases the contact area of the two grains which effectively decreases the point loading that is exerted on the grains in contact. The fact that each coated grain can be in contact with multiple uncoated grains, means that the improvement in crush resistance can be achieved by addition of far less than a 1:1 mixture of coated and uncoated sand grains. For example a 20-30% of coated sand decreased the crush of the mixture by 50% as compared to a pack of 100% uncoated sand.

To achieve the vertical proppant pillar structures (shown in FIG. 1) it is necessary to use a gel, crosslinked or hybrid frac fluid that is capable of perfect proppant transport (doesn't allow proppant to settle while the slurry is being transported along the created fracture) throughout the fractured subterranean field. The first proppant 1 and second proppant 2 are sequentially injected with a higher viscosity frac fluid into the fractured field to form vertical pillars or segments that extend from top to bottom in the fracture but which grow horizontally with subsequent injections of proppant. (See FIG. 1.) The second proppant pillars can carry a greater compressive load and thereby protect the intervening first proppant from failure. It is also likely that using a higher proppant concentration for the stronger proppant could effectively allow those columns of proppant to decrease the stress load on the adjacent columns of weaker proppant. It is also likely that it would be beneficial to make the stronger proppant either slightly larger or smaller than the weaker proppant to either increase the stronger proppant's ability to resist stress, increase overall conductivity or to better control the movement of fines through the proppant pack.

The pillar-type structure of alternating or substantially alternating proppants (e.g., injecting 50,000 lb of sand followed by 21,000 lb of resin coated sand and then repeating this sequence which would represent a ratio of uncoated sand to coated sand of approximately 70% sand to 30% resin coated sand) also serves as a series of in-situ screening segments of consolidated proppants that limit migration of formation fines moving from within the fractured field towards the wellbore.

In the pillar-type structure embodiment, the fracturing and propping process is performed by sequentially introducing a conventional cross-linked or hybrid frac fluid with first proppant and then a second frac fluid containing second proppant. This cycle of first-then-second-proppant injections is repeated a plurality of times, preferably at least twice, and even more preferably at least four times until the fractured field has been substantially fully loaded with proppants and is ready for tail-in and finishing steps. Ideally it is preferred that such a sequencing would be designed to end up with the stronger proppant (in this case the resin coated sand) closest to the wellbore to take advantage a of high conductivity near the wellbore and to keep the proppant occupying the near wellbore part of the fracture from being pulled out of the fracture by produced fluids. If the stronger proppant is not capable of forming a consolidated matrix then one will still have the most conductive part of the proppant pack nearest the wellbore but there will be no ability to insure that proppant (from the fracture) will not be produced out of the fracture when the well is placed on production.

Fracturing fluids can have a wide range of viscosities ranging from foams to crosslinked fluids. Various chemicals are used to generate increased viscosity to aid in generating fracture width, proppant suspension and transport, It is the combination of fluid viscosity and velocity that is used to create the fracture and transport the proppant into the fractured subterranean field. The process typically uses a “pad” fluid that initiates fracture growth followed by continuous introduction of an increasing concentration of proppant in the fracturing fluid.

As is understood in the art, fines capable of damaging proppant packed fractures can include fine solids formed from the strata during the fracturing or proppant embedment process as well as crushed proppants, such as crushed first proppant.

Another embodiment according to the invention contemplates the formation of horizontally extending layers of first proppant and then second proppant that are disposed vertically adjacent (FIG. 2). This structure is formed by pumping sequences of uncoated sand (first proppant 1) and resin-coated sand (second proppant 2) in water, slick water frac fluid, or other frac fluid that will build up a proppant bank as the injection proceeds. Another way of referring to such frac fluids is that they are systems that are incapable of perfect proppant transport (e.g., uniform, high transport) or systems that allow at least a portion of the proppant to settle during transport. This type of treatment will create an uncoated sand segment starting at the bottom of the fracture and build vertically upwardly with successive proppant deposits. Such a deposition process is called building a proppant “bed”. When the resin-coated sand (the second proppant) is subsequently introduced, horizontal layers of the second proppant are formed within the fractured subterranean strata and distant from the wellbore that are vertically on top of the uncoated sand below. Such a vertically-layered structure allows the resin-coated sand to help reduce failure of the uncoated sand but is not as effective at controlling the migration of formation fines from within the fracture towards the wellbore.

The formation of horizontal layers containing the relatively stronger proppant permit the formation of higher conductivity, horizontal channels within the field. Such channels can be used to interconnect high conductivity areas, provide alternate channels for production, or form other structures for enhancing conductivity from the fractured field.

A Slick Water Frac is an hydraulic fracturing fluid with a very low viscosity. Chemicals or gelling agents are used for friction reduction, not proppant suspension and transport. Thus, velocity, not viscosity, is used to place proppant within the fractured field. The fluid/proppant injection rates tend to be high and could have alternating stages of proppant introduction followed by fluid “sweeps” that are free of proppant. A slick water frac doesn't contain high levels of gelling agents and uses, instead, friction reducers. This water is composed of 98-99% water (by volume), 1-1.9% proppant (by volume) and the remainder a variety of chemicals. The chemicals in a slick water frac fluid typically include one or more of the following:

-   -   Friction reducers, or a form of non-acidic polyacrylamide         (0.025% by volume). This substance is used in baby diapers for         its ability to absorb fluids. It is used during fracking to         reduces the horsepower at which pumps have to function, which         helps reduce air emissions. Other natural polymers such as guar         gum can be used.     -   Disinfectants, also known as biocides, these chemicals make up         0.05-0.005%, by volume, of slick water frac. These biocides help         limit the growth of microbes that could lead to the creation of         sour gas, or destroy frac fluids. Currently, scientists are         working on developing biodegradable biocides. The following         biocides are commonly used in fracking and are both found in         hospitals, municipal water systems, and over-the-counter skin         antiseptics.     -   Glutaraldehyde     -   Quaternary amine     -   Surfactants which prevent and break emulsions, and modify the         surface tension.     -   Thickeners, or gelation chemicals, are used in hybrid frac         fluids and include common food additives such as cellulose         polymers and guar gum. These chemicals are not concerning         because they do not break down in toxins.     -   Scale inhibitors are used in varying amounts depending on the         shale formation and include phosphonates, phosphate esters and         polymers. All three of these chemicals are similar to detergent         and are non-toxic in the amounts used at fracking sites.     -   Hydrochloric acid may be used at some sites to reduce pressure         when first cracking into the shale rock. This acid is used up         within the first few inches of drilling into the rock. No acid         returns to the surface and instead the hydrochloric acid is         returned into water, some CO2 and calcium chloride. The         hydrochloric acid levels seen in frac fluid are slightly higher         than those seen in swimming pool water.     -   Corrosion inhibitors are one of the few potentially toxic,         organic compounds used in fracking. These inhibitors are not         always used; their use varies from formation to formation. Most         of these inhibitors, 90-90% are absorbed into the steel used         during the fracking process.

The first proppant can be selected from a wide variety of proppant materials, including uncoated sand, lower density ceramic particles (for instance, aluminum oxide, silicon dioxide, titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, zirconium dioxide, cerium dioxide, manganese dioxide, iron oxide, calcium oxide or bauxite), composite proppants (see U.S. Pat. No. 8,466,093) or also other granular materials. Uncoated sand is preferably used as the first proppant in a preferred embodiment of the present invention.

The first proppants preferably have an average particle size within the range from about 50 μm to about 3000 μm, and more preferably within the range from about 100 μm to about 2000 μm.

The second proppant should be a proppant having a relatively higher average crush strength than the first proppant. Such proppants can include resin coated sand, intermediate and/or higher density ceramics, and the like. The desired size is generally substantially the same as the size range of the first proppant. depending on the nature of the second proppant, it is possible to use a somewhat smaller or larger size range for the second proppant to maximize field conductivity and/or minimize fines movement through the overall proppant pack.

The coating used on the sand in the second proppant can be selected from a wide variety of coatings, including phenolic resins, partially cured resin coatings, curable resin coatings, polyurethane, polyurea, and polycarbodiimide. Polyurethane and/or polyurea coatings on sand are generally preferred for the present invention for their ability to become substantially fully cured yet retain the ability to deform and consolidate with good inter-proppant bond strengths. See, US 2012/0279703; 2012/0283153; 2013/0056204; 2013/0065800; and 2013/0186624 for disclosures related to the manufacture of proppants with polyurethane and/or polyurea coatings. See U.S. Pat. No. 5,597,784 and copending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/015,629 entitled “Proppant With Composite Coating” for various types of composite and reinforced proppant coatings to increase the average crush strength of the proppant. The disclosures of these references are hereby incorporated by reference. It would be also be desirable if the proppant coating under downhole conditions had the ability to have migrating fines stick to the coating surface.

The relative volumes and amounts of first and second proppants used in the present invention can vary within wide limits and will generally fall within the overall volumes that would conventionally be used for a particular type of fractured field. In general, the volume of first proppant is within the range from about 1-99% (v/v), and preferably within the range from about 35-95% (v/v) of the total volume of proppant pumped. The volume of second proppant is within the range from about 1-99% (v/v), and preferably within the range from about 5-65% (v/v) of the total volume of proppant pumped.

Preferred tail-in designs after introduction of the first and second proppants according to the invention use 10-30% of a resin-coated sand following behind 70-85% uncoated sand.

The injection of proppants according to the invention are preferably performed to place the proppant mixture or form the desired proppant layer structures deep within the fractured subterranean strata. Such a distributed presence within the fracture field, e.g., 5-100%, preferably 10-90% of the total fracture field distance from the wellbore, as opposed to a tail-in location that is very near or adjacent the wellbore, helps maintain the conductivity of the fractured field by reduced formation of fines throughout the treated field. If the proppant layers are formed as vertical pillars, as in FIG. 1, the pillars of the treated field can also act as in-situ screens for controlling the migration of formation fines toward the wellbore.

The treated fracture field formed by the present invention can be finished with a tail-in of third proppants that exhibit a higher average crush strength than the second proppants. Such tail-in materials include ceramic proppants of the same or larger size than the second proppants. These tail-in materials are introduced at the final stages of injection so that the third proppants become disposed near or adjacent the wellbore gravel screen.

Preferably, the tail-in pumps in a relatively small amount of 100 mesh sized solids to pack naturally occurring fractures, followed by an uncoated sand, and finally a coated sand or uncoated ceramic. This is consistent with conventional proppant treatments that use an uncoated sand as the proppant followed by a tail-in with either a highly conductive ceramic or a resin-coated sand that can generate a highly conductive area near the wellbore, consolidate to prevent flowback of proppant, or both. In some aspect, the specific selection of a relative proportion of first and second proppants can become an economic choice that balances the generally lower cost of uncoated sand (first proppant) against the benefits from the somewhat more valuable coated sand (second proppant). The key to deciding the optimum ratio between proppant 1 and proppant 2 is to take into account the following factors:

-   -   1) The expected production rate of the well being treated;     -   2) Whether the well is expected to produce back proppant;     -   3) The ability of the fracture fluid to transport proppant         effectively;     -   4) A realistic conductivity value at the application conditions         for the proppant being considered;     -   5) Whether the packed fracture can move the produced fluids         faster than they can enter the fracture through the fracture         faces (the goal should always be to have the factor controlling         production rate not be the conductivity of the proppant in the         packed fracture); and     -   6) An understand of the economics of hydrocarbon being produced         so that it can easily be determined how changes in the ratio of         the two proppants will impact how quickly the cost of the         fracturing treatment can be recovered.

Understanding factors 1-6 above allows the well engineers to make an educated choice about the proppant or proppants used. If the well is likely to produce proppant back then the engineer will need to design the treatment to at least have a tail-in of a coated sand or ceramic. To properly control proppant production, the engineer will likely need to have a tail-in of coated proppant that makes up a minimum of 10-20% of the total proppant pumped. To properly place the tail-in so that it fills the highest amount of area near the wellbore, the engineer will likely need to choose or design a fracturing fluid that is capable of high proppant transport. Once these items are accounted for, the engineer can look at the benefit of using higher ratios of second, stronger proppant. The optimum balance of proppant ratios depends on whether increasing the amount of second proppant will significantly improve the ability of the packed fracture to: (a) produce at higher rates thereby decreasing the time to pay for the fracturing treatment; or (b) produce at economic rates for a longer time thereby impacting the total volume of hydrocarbon recovered from the well over its production life.

EXAMPLES Examples 1-10

Examples 1-10 demonstrate the effects on crush resistance when mixing uncoated proppant sands with coated proppant sands in the same fracture field. Each type of proppant sand is premeasured to fall within a 20/40 mesh size that is typical for proppant sands. Examples 1-4 show the effects of mixing these disparate proppants substantially uniformly. Examples 5-8 demonstrate the effects of a layered structure such as would be formed after sequentially introducing the disparate proppants into the same fractured field. Each test was performed twice in a simulated fracture field by preparing representative samples of each and subjecting the sample to 10,000 psi to simulate the pressures typical of deep wells. At the end of each test, the sample was recovered and tested for the formation of undersized fines. Table 1 summarizes the pertinent data.

TABLE 1 Ratio of % Avg % Crushed Crushed at Crushed at to 100% Ex. Structure Proppant 10k psi 10k psi Uncoated 1 Mixed 80% uncoated + 15.94% 16.04 0.59 20% coated 16.14% 2 Mixed 70% Uncoated + 12.46% 12.68 0.47 30% coated 12.89% 3 Mixed 60% Uncoated + 10.23% 10.33 0.38 40% Coated 10.43% 4 Mixed 50% Uncoated + 9.11% 9.01 0.33 50% Coated 8.91% 5 Layered 10% Coated/ 25.51% 25.31 0.93 80% Uncoated/ 25.11% 10% Coated 6 Layered 15% Coated/ 16.89% 17.35 0.64 70% Uncoated/ 17.80% 15% Coated 7 Layered 20% Coated/ 13.11% 13.64 0.50 60% Uncoated/ 14.17% 20% Coated 8 Layered 10% Coated/ 16.40% 15.97 0.59 35% Uncoated/ 15.54% 10% Coated/ 35% Uncoated/ 10% Coated 9 Uncoated 20/40 Blair 27.23% 27.23 1.00 sand* uncoated 10 Resin-coated 20/40 PU 4.06% — — sand** Coated *Blair uncoated proppant sand **PEARL brand of coated sand from Preferred Sands, LLC, Radford, PA

An analysis of the data in table 1 shows that increasing amounts of resin coated sand reduces the proportion of crushed proppant and the corresponding amount of formation fines.

While not wishing to be bound by theory, it appears that the resin-coated sand in mixtures or layered structures (as in FIG. 1) serves to protect the uncoated sand against failure. The data in Table 1 show that physical mixtures seem to work well at lower than expected ratios, e.g., the presence of 30% of the resin-coated sand cuts in half the amount of crushed, uncoated sand. One potential explanation is that the resin coating deforms to spread out the closure stress applied to the proppant grains. The coating of the resin-coated sand appears to serve a similar benefit to adjacent proppants and any uncoated proppants in the vicinity. Since each coated grain can be in contact with multiple uncoated grains, even a small amount of coated proppants can reduce the crush stress on multiple grains simultaneously and result in lower failure rates.

The data in Table 1 shows that the resin-coated sand proppants can be used to reduce the overall generation of fines when substantially homogeneously mixed with uncoated sand or if placed in alternating segments. Alternating segments (of uncoated sand and coated sand can be used as fines control regions that would act like a series of screens or filters that would control the migration of crushed proppant fines flowing toward the wellbore from upstream in the propped fracture field. The use of one or more, e.g., 1-40, of such vertically-disposed, horizontally-alternating, fines control regions at intervals along and throughout the propped fracture field could help to maintain well conductivity by controlling the migration of fines through the propped field to the wellbore where the bore openings can become clogged with fines so as to reduce or preclude well conductivity in that region.

Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the examples presented herein are intended as illustrative and as a tool for understanding the invention rather than a limitation on the scope of the appended claims. 

1-18. (canceled)
 19. A method for forming a propped, subterranean, hydraulically-fractured field in an oil or gas well by steps that comprise: injecting into the fractured field a first volume of first proppant and a second volume of second proppant exhibiting a higher average crush strength relative to said first proppant, wherein the first proppant is an uncoated proppant and the second proppant is a coated proppant, wherein the injecting into the fractured field comprises injecting: (i) a mixture of the first and second proppants; or (ii) sequentially injecting the first volume of proppants and then injecting the second volume of proppants for at least two cycles of alternating injections to form a layered structure in of first proppants and second proppants within the fractured subterranean field.
 20. The method of claim 19, wherein the injection is performed simultaneously with a fracturing step or shortly thereafter.
 21. The method of claim 19, wherein the first proppant and the second proppant are substantially the same size.
 22. The method of claim 19, wherein the amount of the second proppant is about 10-30% and the amount of the first proppant is about 70-85%.
 23. The method of claim 19, wherein the layered structure is distant from a wellbore.
 24. The method of claim 19, wherein the coated proppant is a resin-coated proppant.
 25. The method of claim 19, wherein the uncoated proppant is uncoated sand.
 26. The method of claim 19, wherein the coated proppant is a coated sand.
 27. The method of claim 19, wherein the coated proppant is a polyurethane-coated proppant.
 28. The method of claim 19, wherein the coated proppant is a polyurea-coated proppant.
 29. The method of claim 19, wherein the coated proppant is coated with a phenolic resin.
 30. The method of claim 19, wherein the coated proppant is coated with an epoxy resin.
 31. The method of claim 19, wherein the coated proppant is coated with a phenolic resin and an epoxy resin.
 32. The method of claim 19, wherein said coated sand is coated with a polyurethane coating and a polyurea coating.
 33. The method of claim 19, wherein the first proppant is injected as a mixture with said second proppant.
 34. The method of claim 19, wherein the injecting step is performed with crosslinked frac fluid.
 35. The method of claim 19, wherein said first and second proppants are sequentially injected to form a series of horizontally-disposed proppant layer structures within a fracture.
 36. The method of claim 19, wherein the injecting step is performed with water or slick water frac fluid.
 37. A method for forming a propped, subterranean, hydraulically-fractured field in an oil or gas, the method comprising sequentially injecting a volume of first proppants and then injecting a volume of second proppants to form a layered structure of first proppants and second proppants within the fractured subterranean field, wherein the second proppant exhibits a higher average crush strength relative to said first proppant, wherein the first proppant and the second proppant are substantially the same size, wherein the first proppant is an uncoated proppant, wherein the second proppant is a coated proppant.
 38. The method of claim 37, wherein the amount of the second proppant is about 10-30% and the amount of the first proppant is about 70-85%. 